How many photos do you edit ?

Hello friends.

Most of the photographers has their own editing style, like for example warmer colors, cooler colors, matte effects and many other kinds of photo styles. My question is simple. If you are using some kind of photo style, how many photos do you edit ? Do you edit every single photo ? Or you edit only some of them (let´s say portrait photos f.e.). and leave all remaining photos in natural colors as they were shot ?

Example:

Let´s say, I have total of 1500 photos from wedding. Of course, basic editing, like crop, exposure, etc. is sure thing. But let´s say, my favourite photo filter is pastel colors. Should I apply it for every single photo ? Or pick best shots and apply it only for them ?

I have a few effects that I like for particular types of wedding images. Certain things that I do to portraits, others to ceremony shots, certain things that I like in different B&W effects. After the basic edits that you mention, I go back through and apply some of these to certain images. These are all commercial presets. I don't individually edit ANY images . . . Well . . . Every now and then, I do.

When shooting, I will sometimes take a few extra images of the same scene. For example, if I am working outdoors with the bride and groom and notice that a particular pose/location would look great with my IR action, I'll make sure to get a few more exposures.

I also know other photographer who will shoot 1500 images, edit those down to 450 or 500 and edit every single image before the bride and groom see them. They have a different business model from mine and charge quite a bit more.

I dont do any special effects edits without first consulting with my clients. I only do natural edits with a boost of color and constrast as a standard edit.

I sell albums so any images that go into albums are handled with special care. If they only want files then I do just my standard edit.

rick_jack I've seen more than a few weddings get up to 5k images shot. It's absurd to me but there are photographers who do it. My nephew got married a couple of years ago and there were four still photographers and at least one drone in action. I thought they got in the way but it's what the bride, or her mom, wanted. The problem is how to edit so many and I've found that many photographers do a very basic edit and hand them over. The last wedding I shot I got maybe 600 images over two days and edited it down to about 450.

Rick H.

If the customers wants a special look (vintage, film or something), I'll do all and every picture I deliver that way. It's different with b/w: on most weddings I will have 20 - 30 pictures as a second copy, together with the original color version.

Holger

I often pick only best shots and apply 2-3 favourite filters for them => then choose the best edited version :)

Anw I prefer natural shot than edited shot :)

Anw I prefer natural shot than edited shot :)

“Natural” and “edited” are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, often it requires some good, nuanced editing for a photo to look natural.

Of course, “natural” looking isn’t always better or even desired. At a wedding, people are typically unnaturally dressed, unnaturally made up and coifed, carry themselves more formally and less naturally than normal, so a more formal, more made-up, less natural style of photography might, at times, be as or more appropriate and in tune than a more “natural” approach.

I edit every photo that makes it through culling. 'Culling' is the initial phase of 'Post-Processing' after downloading and backing up the images. So, after getting home, download everything, back up everything, then start 'culling' the images. In other words, go through every single image, make a quick evaluation, and decide whether or not it gets rejected now, or moves on. That takes 1-10 sec per image. Things like missed focus, way out exposure errors, redundant images/ blinked eyes/unfortunate composition decisions, unflattering angles/ unfortunate appearances, etc. all get weeded out at this stage. Once that is done, I go back and do basic exposure/framing/color tweak edits. That's easily 90% of post. The remaining 10% is spent on maybe 1-2% of the images, doing specific edits and PSing for headline type images. Yes, it can certainly take awhile, but it is what it is what it is. I've certainly shot full day weddings (16+hrs) where I've come home w/ 3500+ RAWS, and delivered 450+ images, but most are well under half that. With a decent workflow in place (and decent post software like LR), culling takes a day or two of solid work for the largest jobs, but usually much less.

That said, I've never once used a 'filter' to make a final output deliverable ... I've tried them a few times, and found that, inevitably, they are a recipe for the masses, they always need tweaking to optimize for an image, so instead, I just learned how to use the tools properly and avoided the wasted time fixing what the filter broke. IME, every single image is unique. A filter can't read my mind, nor can it see what's in the image. It's just a bunch of arbitrary edits, many of which 'generally' apply, and can certainly give a 'consistent' output, but I find that rubber stamping an image with a filter often detracts from the characteristics that make it unique. Of course YMMV, and that's just my experience using them for professional work.

I save unaltered RAW files and large scans.

I only edit at the use of the image, and often do not save the edits at all. How I edit, depends on the purpose of the edit.

Of course, ex-spouses and such-like are routinely 'airbrushed out' (Just like Stalin's early friends and associates)

Only the two good frames from the 24 shot on the Rollei.

It's always baffled me why on earth people want all these shots of their wedding. The only one you ever see on the mantlepiece is the one of them leaving the church.

It's always baffled me why on earth people want all these shots of their wedding. The only one you ever see on the mantlepiece is the one of them leaving the church.

Because as the couple ages, many of those in all the other shots from the wedding will have passed away and others’ faces will have changed over the years. Though the one on the mantle may be the “money shot,” the ones in the scrapbook will provide hours of bittersweet memories for the couple and their children, visual memories of people gone but still remembered and relatives their kids may want to put a face to who they never got to meet, of fashions the kids will get a kick out of, as visual accompaniments to stories that will convey a personal past to later generations, and a multitude of other very human reasons photos are so cherished.

Because as the couple ages, many of those in all the other shots from the wedding will have passed away and others’ faces will have changed over the years. Though the one on the mantle may be the “money shot,” the ones in the scrapbook will provide hours of bittersweet memories for the couple and their children, visual memories of people gone but still remembered and relatives their kids may want to put a face to who they never got to meet, of fashions the kids will get a kick out of, as visual accompaniments to stories that will convey a personal past to later generations, and a multitude of other very human reasons photos are so cherished.

I agree. Sure, that is why they relish them when they are old enough, but as an unmarried couple planning their wedding, they surely don’t consider having them so they can revel in the groovy clothes everyone had when they were younger?

I was just suggesting that really, a few choice shots do;the job. These days, there is no shortage of photos from any function.

as an unmarried couple planning their wedding, they surely don’t consider having them so they can revel in the groovy clothes everyone had when they were younger

Since most young couples I know have had parents and grandparents whose "groovy clothes" (in my parents' case their fashions from the forties that I loved seeing were long before "groovy" and much more art deco inspired, and some of the better stuff was Bobby Soxer fare) they reveled in when they looked through old scrapbooks and photo albums, I think you don't give young couples credit enough for being nostalgic and thinking about what they and their future kids may appreciate and react to, just as they did. Unmarried couples planning their weddings are often thinking well into the future, about having children and starting a family, about buying a home for the future, etc. It makes sense they would consider and want to have good quality, professional photos of a day they assume will stand out as a significant milestone throughout the rest of their lives. They know it will be an event where friends and family will be together IN ONE PLACE, which doesn't happen terribly often these days, so these aren't replacing typical facebook and instagram snapshots that are usually of individuals or small groups. It will be an opportunity to catch people TOGETHER, small groups often within the context of a larger whole group, that doesn't come along all that often since we tend to be more spread out.

I think a good wedding photo album requires more than a few choice shots. It requires telling the story of the wedding, and that will include getting everyone in attendance in at least a couple of photos, capturing different sorts of moments and expressions from joy to fun to bittersweet to serious, capturing formal as well as more casual moments. A wedding album should feel full, not paired down to a few choice shots. A few choice shots is what, for at least the first year of marriage, may remain on display in the home. A wedding album should be more than that.

Any that I am not happy with. I made sure all are level and well composed first than if needed I adjust the gamma and exposure.

If your image is not good your customer should never see it. It's better to say you missed the shot than give someone shit.